Skip to main content
Download PDF

The impact of public leadership on collaborative administration and public health delivery

BMC Health Services Research volume 24, Article number: 129 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

This research depicts the linkage of public leadership on public health delivery (PHD) and collaborative administration. The research is also focused to examine the effect of public leadership on public health delivery through the intervening variable of collaborative administration by using both social information processing theory and collaboration theory.

Methods

This research is based on quantitative method. Data was collected from 464 public hospital administration in the context of Pakistan. This study evaluated data using SPSS, AMOS, and PROCESS Macro.

Results

Public leadership has a positive profound effect on public health delivery and collaborative administration, and that collaborative administration significantly promotes public health delivery. The outcomes also exposed that public leadership has substantial influence on public health delivery through intervening collaborative administration.

Conclusions

Whilst public leadership demonstrated positive outcomes on public health delivery and collaborative administration, there is a need for more rigor studies on collaborative governance leadership, collaborative ethics and collaborative norms in the public health service.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

The transition in the global economy and the dynamic environment have presented public health organizations with a challenge to enhance public health delivery [1]. The WHO report concluded that boosting effectiveness of public services is the first step toward raising public health institutions performance [2]. Despite the widespread agreement on the significance of government health provision, little is known about how leadership operates in the public health sector [3]. The “publicness” of health organizations creates a unique setting that is unlike any other type of organizations (Private, corporations and NGO’S) for their leaders [4]. Public health organizations often come under fire for being overly bureaucratic, static, unmoving, and conservative as compare to private health hospitals [5]. Public leadership practices may change public health organizations with their public health delivery in developing countries [6]. As strong hierarchical leadership seen collaborative administration is either undesirable or ineffective in bringing parties together in collaborative process [7]. It is believed that collaborative administration will bring together administrative stakeholders and engage them through Public leadership [8].

“Public leadership is a type of leadership specific to the public sector organization with new aspects including accountability, rule following, political loyalty and network”. So, PL is a powerful and effective kind of leadership uniquely suited to the government institutions. Public Leadership interventionist mediation techniques are essential for collaboration among all stakeholders [9]. It is stated that public leaders often intervene in a more direct way to pursue collaboration agenda [10]. Therefore public leadership is essential for embracing, empowering, involving, and mobilizing public health sector in order to progress towards collaboration [11]. Moreover, it is argued that public leaders “give meaningful voice to participants” and encourage them to attend to one another. Public Leaders ensure creativity by synthesizing the diverse knowledge of hospital administration to generate new concepts and comprehension [12]. Researchers in this field have long argued that further empirical studies are needed to determine the connections between public leadership and other factors influencing public health organizations, such as employee motivation and turnover [13,14,15].

While collaboration literature emphasis on governance which stated that collaboration is delivered by the public institution officials [16]. Collaborative administration is one of dimension of the collaboration, in which “partner organizations rely on administrators/managers to collaborate, mitigate conflicts, establish formal communication channels, agree on mutual goals in the collaboration activities” [17]. So, it is supposed that the public organization specifically hospital administration also ensures intra and inter organizational collaboration through observing the above-mentioned process of collaborative administration. As public hospitals administrators/managers are challenging task and expose to the collaborations internally and externally. So, the focus on the public hospitals’ administrators/managers collaborations with other public hospitals administrators/managers to ensure effective PHD.

According to the Social Information Processing (SIP) theory, people’s beliefs and actions are manipulated by the information they process from their social environments [18]. This theory suggested that because leaders have the most influence and authority in an organization, those who report to them actively obtain information from their leaders’ actions. Those subordinates process that information from their leader in their own way [19]. Using this theory, it is argued that the public leadership behaviours information is processed by hospitals administrators/managers for successful public health services delivery. With the help of SIP theory, public leaders may shape the mindsets and actions of public hospital administrators/managers through information sharing For example, public leadership enables the administration of public hospitals to effectively process information pertaining to the accountability aspect, communication and knowledge sharing, which in turn would allow subordinates to remove accountability barriers in public hospital administration for effective PHD [20]. Public health delivery goals may be more easily attained if public hospital administration is motivated to follow action plans by rule-following aspect of public leadership [21]. Public hospital administration may be motivated to work hard to achieve public health goals by the political loyalty of public leaders [22]. As part of public leadership dimension, network aspect allow administration to encourage managers and administrators to work in collaboration with partner organizations and external stakeholders to acquire the information and resources needed to carry out effective public health delivery [23]. We postulated that the assessment of public leadership qualities (including accountability for actions, adherence to regulations, democratic commitment, and participatory administration) by hospital administration could potentially enhance the provision of public health services following SIP principles. As a result of complex and dynamic nature of pernicious public health issues—which encompass challenges across sectors, multiple levels, and actors—they cannot be consolidated within the a single public hospital [24,25,26]. By involving other Stakeholders of the community, public hospitals can determine collaborative value, explain factors which influence that value, and explore which kinds of strategic resources are needed to affect community through collaborative administration [27]. In order to explain ‘how to’ put collaborative administration into practice and to create sustainable health results, the literature highlights the need of ‘informal variables’ (such as facilitative leadership, trust, commitment, common understanding, and values) [28]. Good intentions and following established procedures can only become true collaborative administration if they are put into practice.

Therefore, ‘public leadership’ and ‘collaboration’ are essential for public health institutions; however, a dearth of specificity and nuance in theory and empirical research hinders the development of knowledge and understanding regarding public leadership for collaborative administration.

Previous studies have demonstrated that leadership perceptions affect public health delivery in two ways:, by affecting collaborative administration procedures directly and by affecting public health delivery itself indirectly [29]. The collective impact of public leadership on public health delivery can be explained by the SIP theory [30]. This theory also effects public leadership directly and their subordinates indirectly. So, SIP Theory support this study as managers or administrators process information from their organization leader. collaboration theory illustrates that the managers and administrators collaborate with multiple stakeholders for effective public service delivery.

Considering the increased emphasis on open and honest sharing of actions and communications within collaborations and with other actors, the accountability aspect of PL may have an effect on the collaboration building processes (goal setting, role clarification, social relationships, and decision making). Employees’ ability to manage interpersonal conflicts and problems, as well as their individual and collective duties and obligations, may be influenced by the rule-following part of public leadership. Because it strengthens them to resolve to stick together for the greater good. The political loyalty aspect of PL may have an impact on the interpersonal relationship and problem-solving aspects of collaboration building. The network facet of public leadership can have an impact on the collaborative building processes (e.g., goal formulation, social relations, and issue solving) by enabling and motivating various stakeholders to operate in network and partnerships internally and externally. According to this, the establishment of hospital administration collaborations can be affected by all characteristics of PL, which is illustrated as PL effect on project success through teambuilding in Pakistani context [31].

This study utilizes both SIP theory and collaboration theory to inquire into the relationship between public leadership, collaborative administration and health delivery. Moreover, the study also examines how collaborative administration acts as a mediator between public leadership and public health delivery. This research adds to the existing literature on public leadership by considering public health delivery and collaborative administration in the context of strengthening government health institutions. So, following are research questions.

  • What is relationship between public leadership with public health delivery?

  • What is relationship between public leadership with the collaborative administration?

  • How collaborative administration mediates between the relationship of public leadership and public health delivery?

Theoretical background and hypotheses development

Public leadership and public health delivery

International governments plan and implement public health services for numerous socioeconomic purposes [32]. The GOP allocated annually budgets for thousands of public health programmes [33]. The political leadership usually comes up with the idea for these public health delivery programs, which are then formulated by the central government and carried out by the local government. Political leadership eventually entrusted public leadership and their public hospital administration for implementation for public health delivery. Success in effective public health delivery requires the participation of many groups and individuals, including public health institutions, political leadership, health planning institutions, public health officers, private hospitals, trust hospitals, community health organizations, social security hospitals and the general public at large [34]. Several scholars agree that a public health delivery is successful if it is carried out successfully, produces the desired results, helps the health organizations, creates room for forthcoming development and believes for effective public health delivery to all actors [35]. Failure and success in public health delivery is contingent on a number of factors [36]. However, leadership behaviour is recognized as a significant factor that determines success or failure [37]. According to a study poor public leadership style is responsible for 80% of public health failures, The extant empirical evidence suggests that different traditional leadership styles have varying impacts on public health delivery [38, 39]. For instance, transformational-leadership influences successful public health delivery by empowering, motivating and fostering collaborations [40]. Ethical leadership by fostering an environment in which employees adhere to high health ethics and standards [41]. A servant leader assists, cares for, and authorizes health specialists [42]. Inclusive leadership through the creation of an inclusive setting and prospects in which all stakeholders participate and receive the leader’s support [43]. Conventional leadership behaviors and efficient public health delivery are supported by social behavior theories like SIP and collaboration theory [44,45,46].

According to researchers of public health management, there is a need of different set of leadership behaviors than those are in public sector for effective public hospitals administration performance [47]. Using prior research and the relationship-based perspective on leadership. It is conceived as four-dimensional construct based qualities of competent public hospital administration as leaders [48]. Whereas (1) accountability leadership dimension of PL extended open and unequivocal communication among organizational stakeholders. (2) Norms and processes are emphasized heavily in rule-following leadership aspect of public leadership. Thirdly, political loyalty is focused on supporting political leaders and keeping in good standing with them (4) Network leadership aspect of public leadership encourage administrators to network both inside and outside the government [49]. The three facets of PL describe the central features of public hospitals in the government; the fourth, NL, was introduced to reflect the increasing significance of working in collaborating within government organizations [50]. Previous research has shown that public leadership is linked with an increase in personnel institutional commitment, engagement, motivation, citizenship behavior, and change orientations [14], professionalism in teaching profession and effectiveness in public health organizations [51]. As postulated by the social information processing theory and collaboration theory, public leadership has beneficial impact on employee motivation and productivity [52]. The limited empirical literature on public leadership highlights the need for more empirical studies examining the impact of public leadership on a wide range of public context variables [15]. The effect of public leadership on public health delivery is an area where the existing literature is lacking in particular. In SIP theory, public leadership is assumed to influence public health delivery in a variety of ways; for example, the accountability facet of PL may improve sharing specialization and actions with multiple stakeholders, thereby aiding them in resolving public health issues and implementing public health delivery actions professionally. Sharing of knowledge could facilitate the correction of procedures for the efficient implementation of public health plans by administrators [53] as well as increase stakeholders participation [54]. Researches indicate that the perception of enhanced performance in public hospitals is linked to the perception of increased accountability in public health institutions [55]. Public health delivery objectives can be achieved through the rule-following part of PL, which can persuade stakeholders to perform in accordance with prescribed public health actions and processes. Following these strategies and procedures could result in the successful completion of public health delivery programmes [56]. Rule abidance can more effectively align stakeholders’ actions with public health objectives, persuading tasks efficiently and in accordance with established standards [57]. Multiple stakeholders may be influenced by the political loyalty facet of PL to be faithful and committed in defending policies of political leaders, which can only be defended when the public health delivery is effective [11]. Public health Mangers/administrators loyalty has been identified as a key component in boosting public health delivery in public hospitals [58].

H1:

PL is positively associated with public health delivery.

PL and collaborative administration

Effective public sector executives, according to some scholars, are less materialistic, open and mindful and more participative rather than directive [59,60,61]. These public sector executives played pivotal role in policy implementation through public leaders behaviors. It is argued that public leaders play a critical role in encouraging multi stakeholders to collaborate to solve complicated public problems including public health problems [62]. So, PL is conceptualized concept for public organizations that prioritizes the public goods delivery and generates value of public organizations in the public [13].

Historically, public health administration has devoted insufficient attention to the topic of leadership [63]. This is especially true for public health sector public leadership [64]. Most modern treatments of public leadership concentrate on intraorganizational leadership [65,66,67]. In other words, the modern emphasis in public health administration is on cultivating leaders evolves within the context of organizations “often operate across organizations as well as within hierarchies” [11, 68]. Various personal attributes, skills and behavioral competencies are required for public leadership in collaborative context of public health management [69]. Previous studies on collaboration, especially collaboration for public services, demonstrates critical role of leadership in determining the success or failure of collaborative projects [70, 71]. It is believed that “public leadership makes a huge difference” and influenced by his collaborations traits with other stakeholders in hospital administration [72]. Public leadership in public hospitals adopts collaboration through unified efforts across diverse and often conflicting groups in the pursuit of a health delivery objective [73, 74]. Traditional notions of leadership are organizational (hierarchical) and ultimately centered on authority and motivating “followers.” However, public leadership for collaboration is radically different. Thus, the argument here is that effective leadership across public organizations requires additional competencies. Several scholars have developed public management-applicable models of collaborative (sometimes termed “facilitative”) leadership [75,76,77,78]. The majority of studies examine leadership from the perspective of governance [79] but collaborative administration is one of the dimension of collaboration carried out by public officials [17]. As public institutions governance are carried out by administrators/Mangers [80] Since the concentration is on public leadership as a process of bringing together stakeholders to solve public health problems, none of the examples are explicitly from the public health sector and collaborative administration. In other words, rather than viewing public leadership in terms of achieving PHD, researches emphasized on addressing human resources and psychological practices of health professional like knowledge sharing and public sector motivation in Pakistan [81, 82]. Therefore, leadership is exercised across all sectors, but public leadership is limited to only government organizations. Numerous traits, skills and actions have been singled out as essential for public leadership [83]. Public Leadership development in the public hospitals is broken down into 37 distinct competencies, including 10 personality traits, 6 “meta-skills,” and 21 actions. These are detailed in the book “Dynamics of Leadership in the Public sector” [84]. The network characteristic of PL may stimulate and allow health managers/administrators to cultivate new relationships internally and externally, thereby enhancing coordination among stakeholders [85]. This facet of public leadership may inspire networking among stakeholders, which may persuade in apportioning necessary capital and skills to accomplish tasks [86]. Suggesting SIP, we hypothesize that the combination of the characteristics of PL (AL, RL, LL, and NL) can influenced attitudes of public hospital administration towards achieving public health delivery outcomes. The objective here is to align the public leadership skills applicable to the collaborative administrative context. Above discussion draws following hypothesis.

H2:

PL is positively associated with collaborative administration.

Collaborative administration and public health delivery

The ‘wicked’ challenges in public health delivery have prompted scholars of public health administration to call for a greater emphasis on establishing collaborative administration systems [87,88,89]. By concept, public health services are inter-organizational activities that require all actors, including patients, to collaborate to create public health value [90]. “Collaborative administration” can help public-sector institutions articulate public value, its drivers and the strategic resources needed to improve community health outcomes [91]. By facilitating the creation of ‘strong’ policies, this method of learning alludes to an outcome-focused viewpoint. Achieving community resilience and sustainable socioeconomic development by having all relevant stakeholders participate in the policy codesign, coproduction, and assessment processes in health sector [92, 93]. This perspective envisions a plural state where numerous interdependent players supply public health services and diverse procedures impact decision [94].

H3:

collaborative administration is positively associated with public health delivery.

The mediating nature of collaborative administration

“Collaboration administration is a strategy to help public officers to deal with public services issues by engaging with other governmental and non-governmental actors inside and outside focal organization to implement achieve policy objectives [95]. Particularly, collaboration can be one type of organizational arrangement for tackling wicked policy problems which require collective efforts from multiple public hospitals for delivering public health services which single public hospital may not be able to provide in a more efficient way [96]. Such intergovernmental arrangement can enhance public health administration capacities and desired policy implementation. In public health literature, collaborations outward including other governments and non-governmental stakeholders could make substantive impacts on public health policy outcomes pertaining to public health delivery [97]. It is indicated a positive association between managerial leadership and public health Collaboration in survey [98]. Other scholars also observe a similar pattern in the realm of health services and community services [99]. This can occur because collaboration administration could stimulate policy knowledge, resources, supplementary skills, community support and trust in public hospitals administrators/managers across public hospitals. This will contribute to the accomplishment of public hospital administrators/managers responsiveness that can only be obtained by collaborating with other public hospitals, rather than sole health services provided by single public hospital [100, 101]. It is worth noting that collaborative administrative patterns could lead to specific public hospital networks [102]. For public hospitals, building strong and weak collaborative administration can serve for different public hospitals facilities and equipment’s to accommodate patients [103, 104]. A particular collaborations pattern (collaborative administration) could push performance upward or downward due to the type of resources transmitted via collaborations which may or may not be suitable to mitigate uncertainty and boost health services reputation [105]. These findings suggested that public hospitals would need to strategically select other public hospitals which would in turn facilitates the patient’s public health issues. On other hand, urban studies recognized the importance of intergovernmental collaboration in health delivery [106]. The main rationale behind this type of administrative collaboration can be rectification of health care organization scope and services mismatch [107], deterioration of fiscal conditions [108], improvement of public health quality or sometime a bunch of these together [109]. If collaborative administration can improve public hospital performance, we then expect public leaders in public hospitals would consider it in health arrangement as a viable option. Indeed, Public hospitals are one of major type which provide public services that oftentimes encountered issue of diseconomies of scale in emergency situation [110]. Despite the collaboration barriers among public hospital administration/Managers, local officials see public health delivery economy of scale [111]. Given the influences of administrative collaboration on public health delivery, the question of interest would then turn to be what is relationship between public leadership, collaborative administration and public health delivery might be. As illustrated that public leadership can modify the preference of public hospitals on the choices of collaborative administration which would then change public health delivery. Due to different education and managerial background as well as career goals, hospitals administrators/managers may assign different values to administrative decision making. For example, unban public hospital administrators/managers with progressive ambitious are more likely to be the seller and less likely to be buyer of public health delivery [112]. Self-development minded public hospital administrators/managers are more inclined towards collaborative administration [113]. As a result, public leadership can open the opportunity window for building collaboration and bring changes in traditional administrative practices in the public hospitals context. Viewing public health services issues in intra and interorganizational perspective, public hospitals might seek for collaboration as alternative to enhance the level of health delivery [114]. Given this empirical evidence, it is supposed that collaborative administration can be directed through public leadership which can in turn affect public health delivery. so, it is hypothesized that: (See Fig. 1)

H4:

collaboration administration intervenes the linkage between PL and PHD.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Conceptual model

Full size image

Materials and methods

Sample and procedure

The data utilized in this study was gathered via an online descriptive survey. By applying this scientific method to this survey research, source materials were rigorously analyzed and evaluated, data were interpreted, generalized and predictions were made. Since the purpose of this research was to examine the public leadership and administrative collaboration of administrators /managers in public hospitals. As a result, the descriptive survey method of research was suitable for this research as emphasized by [115]. We initially approached health department of Punjab Province to apprise them of the research’s objectives. The policy formulation and oversight of hospital administration/managers at 88 THQ and 34 DHQ public hospitals throughout the province fall under the purview of health department Punjab. With the consent of the Health Secretary of Punjab, we have obtained permission to carry out the survey. To assist us in obtaining the personal information and email addresses of medical unit heads and administrators/managers DHQ and THQ of public hospitals, he rendered the services of his subordinate. Thus, the data were gathered from the administrators/managers of 34 DHQ, 88 THQ, public hospitals and the heads of their respective medical units. The survey link response and request letter have been dispatched to the email addresses of the administrators/managers and their respective medical unit heads of public hospitals. In the request-response letter, emphasis was placed on the anonymity of the responses and study’s objectives.

The online Google form survey was designed in such a way that we have put first conditional option as: have you collaborated with other hospital administration recently (in the past two years)? Clicking “Yes” allowed the respondent to the next section. We have put two options in the next section option 1 was “public leadership (topmost head)”, and option 2 was “subordinate to the public leadership (department head)”. Clicking the first option was leading the hospital head to respond to collaborative administration, public health delivery and public leadership general information, demographics, and his/her name. Clicking the “subordinate to public leadership (head)” option was leading subordinate departmental head in the hospital to measure the public leadership questionnaire, the name of the departmental head, departmental-related general information, and demographics of respondents. Following this process, we have received 496 valid responses from hospital head and 484 valid responses from subordinate hospital departmental head. Using the hospital names, 464 responses of the subordinate departmental head were matched with the responses of their hospital leader (head). The findings of the study are based on total valid response rate of 73%. The potential demographic control factors of 464 hospital wards head that may influence public health delivery are presented in the following (Table 1).

Table 1 Description of demographics variables
Full size table

In order to assess the constructs, this research used existing developed measures. Participants were given a five-point Likert scale to score their level of agreement, extending from “1” for strongly disagreeing to “5” for strongly agreeing. 11-items were used to rate public leaders by adapting already existing scale developed for public leadership with its four aspects (accountability, rule following, political loyalty and network) by (Vogel, 2020) [116]. Cronbach’s alpha value 0.89 indicated that the research instrument had a high level of internal consistency. The 22-item SERVQUAL instrument with dimensions ( tangibility, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy) developed by (Zeithaml, 1988) was adapted in this study to measures public health delivery [117] and is already used in public health services in Pakistan [118]. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the reliability of the instrument utilized to evaluate the public health delivery was determined to be 0.92, indicating a high level of internal consistency.

To measure collaborative administration, this study used existing developed 11-item developed by (Thomas et al., 2009) [17], With a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient value of 0.91. Reliability analysis showed strong internal consistency. We used the gender, age, education level, and experience of public hospital administrators /managers as a control. It is because these control factors have the potential to influence the dependent variable (PHD) [119, 120].

Data analysis

This study evaluated data using SPSS, AMOS and PROCESS Macro. The goal of the CFA was to assess the congruence between the empirical data and the hypothesized latent constructs. Latent constructs are accurately modeled by the observable variables as depicted by CFA results [121] (Table 2).

Table 2 Descriptive statistics, correlation, reliability, and validity
Full size table

we then tested our hypothesis by using linear regression analysis with the mediation model-4. Using a linear regression model, the relationship between the explanatory and response variables was investigated. The mediation model-4 test was utilized to evaluate the hypothesized mediator’s effect relationship between explanatory and outcome variables. The aforementioned tests facilitated the determination of the significance and strength of the hypothesized associations, as well as the influence of the mediator variable on the relationship between the independent and dependent variables [122] (Table 3).

Table 3 Model fit indices
Full size table

Results

Construct factor analysis, reliabilities and validities

Using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), the suitability of the three-factor model consisting PL, public health delivery and collaborative administration was evaluated. The analysis showed that the three-factor model demonstrated a good fit with the data (χ2 = 815.16, df = 515, χ2 /df = 1.643, CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.92, SRMR = 0.04, RMSEA = 0.05) than the single factor model, which showed poor fit (χ2 = 669.58, df = 28, χ2 /df = 25.542, CFI = 0.69, TLI = 0.56, SRMR = 0.08, RMSEA = 0.26) (Table 2). The greatest emergent component explained 32% of variation, below Harman’s single-factor statistical threshold of 40% [123]. This suggests that common method bias (CMB) has a relatively small effect on self-reported data. Cronbach’s alpha scores displayed in above-mentioned section (Measures) demonstrated that study’s constructs are very reliable. Furthermore, all structures had CR that were greater than 0.80 (Table 4), demonstrating study’s constructs high degree of internal consistency among them [124]. AVE was employed to assess convergent validity of constructs. AVE values over 0.50 showed that the constructs in the study had good convergent validity. Therefore, the study constructs have strong convergent validity. Fornell and Larcker created method used to evaluate discriminant validities [125]. The results depict (AVE) were greater than correlations between constructs correlations, supporting discriminant validity. It also revealed that construct correlations are smaller than the square root of the AVE for each construct as depicted in (Table 4). This demonstrates the constructs’ discriminant validity [126].

Table 4 Regression results
Full size table

Given these figures and the orientations of study’s variables’ correlations, regression analysis seems reasonable to test these presupposed linkages. Regression analysis seems acceptable given these results and the study’s variable correlation as explained (Table 4).

Regression results

Hypothesis are tested through SPSS PROCESSMACRO’s for linear regression and mediation model-4 [120]. Hypothesized associations are depicted in (Table 2). When controls were exhibited in the regression analysis (Table 3), PL exhibited a positive association with PHD (β = 0.28, p < 0.001) and CA (β = 0.27, p < 0.001). H1 and H2 demonstrated regression outcomes. The intervening variable collaborative administration was significantly associated with public health delivery (β = 0.29, p < 0.001), supporting H3 (Table 3). Thus, the research model’s paths a, b, and c are significantly connected. When all three routes in a mediation model-4 are considerably linked, it showed that model have a mediation effect [127]. To assess the mediating role of collaborative administration between public leadership and public health delivery, mediation model-4 was used for mediation analysis with 5000 bootstraps and 95% CI. It also depicted an indirect effect of PL on the PHD via CA (β = 0.15, p < 0.001) (Table 3). Based on prescribed criteria, it is observed that the bootstrap intervals, specifically [0.25, 0.48], do not include the value of 0. Consequently, it can be inferred that the mediating effect is significant [120]. Public leadership’s impact on the PHD has weakened but remained significant showing partial mediation, providing support to H4. The indirect effect was also verified through Sobel’s test [128]. The values of the product of coefficient were (SE = 0.05, t = 3.09, p < 0.001), all these support H4. Thus, empirical studies validated all study hypotheses H1, H2, H3, and H4 (Table 3).

Discussion

This study addressed the relationship among public leadership, collaborative administration and public health delivery. Studying how public leadership affects public health delivery through intervening collaborative administration was another goal. The results indicated that public leadership is correlated with public health delivery. That is, more positive evaluations of public health delivery are recorded after a greater emphasis was placed on public leadership qualities. Previous studies corroborate this conclusion by showing the association between PL and project success in Pakistan is positive [31]. Strategic leadership styles also influence public health delivery in private health care contexts [129]. So, it stands to reason that “PL is a government institutions spcific leadership style” that is also linked with PHD by public hospitals administration explicitly [14]. Previous quantitative research has demonstrated that this public leadership is positively associated with the teachers’ competence [130], school education effectiveness [131], public sector motivation [132] and health performance [133]. This scholarship also showed that PL has a favorable effect on collaborative administration. That is to say, how people view collaborative administration is affected by the traits of public leaders. This conclusion is backed by studies that analyzed how leadership styles affected collaboration in environment management [134]. Earlier empirical research on collaborative administration and managerial leadership is reported not only from Pakistan but also from other countries [135, 136]. In addition, prior empirical research has demonstrated that PL effects civil servants commitment, workplace engagement, performance, citizenship behaviour and change orientations [30]. It is inferred from data analysis that public leadership promotes on collaborative administration. In other words, people’s impression of public health delivery is influenced by the public hospitals administrators/ managers collaboration. This finding from Pakistan’s collaboration context generalizes previous findings on interagency collaboration in health sector projects in Pakistan [137]. In addition, this study illustrated collaborative administration as a mediator between PL and PHD. Earlier research also demonstrated that PL effects the institutional administrative performance [138] academics [139], institutional change orientation [140]. From this research, it is deduced that collaborative administration plays a pivotal role in improving public health delivery through health administrators/managers in Pakistan.

Novel contributions

This study adds to the body of literature by adding theoretical knowledge. First, the existing body of empirical research pertaining to the connection between public health delivery and public leadership behaviors is notably limited. Second, in terms of its influence on employees and organizational outcomes, the concept of PL is a relatively new phenomenon that has not been the subject of extensive empirical research [141]. Consequently, this research broadens the scope of PL by identifying collaborative administration within the framework of PHD. Third, collaborative administration serves as the intermediary connecting PL and PhD. Forth The application of the distinctiveness generof unique collaboration dimension (collaborative administration) in the context of hospital administration in Pakistan.

This study makes a significant theoretical contribution to the extant body of literature. Firstly, the existing body of empirical research on the correlations between managerial leadership behaviors and public health delivery is notably limited [142, 143]. Secondly, the concept of public leadership is a recently developed idea that has not been well studied in terms of its effects on employees and organizational outcomes [14, 15]. The primary notable contribution of this work is the establishing of a causal relationship between PL and PHD. Therefore, this study expanded the application of public leadership behaviors to the administration of public hospitals. The field of public management lacks sufficient literature on collaborative administration research, as emphasized by [17]. Specifically, there is a dearth of empirical studies examining the relationship between public sector-specific leadership approaches, such as public leadership and collaborative administration building within public health institutions. The third theoretical contribution of the research is an examination of empirical evidence linking collaborative administration and PL. This discovery further applies the notion of public leadership to collaborative investigations within the field of public management. Nevertheless, organizational outcomes and empirical findings regarding collaborative administration are not entirely consistent, according to a recent systematic review [144]. The identification of a substantial connotation between PHD and collaborative administration in this study strengthens the validity of the prior empirical findings. This result provides additional support for the notion that collaborative administration is a crucial CSF for PHD. Additionally, this study contributes to the current body of knowledge by illustrating that public leadership influences public health delivery not only directly but also indirectly through collaborative administration. Therefore, the findings of our research hold significance for scholars who are interested in determining the consequences of public leadership, the determinants of effective PHD and collaborative investigations in public management.

Theoretical and policy implications

The practical implications of this study are substantial within the realm of public health delivery. The Public policy for public health is authorized and funded by legislative approvals, while the provincial health department is responsible for their planning and implementation. These are further supervised by administrators/managers of public hospitals and the heads of respective hospitals medical units’ heads in the public’s socioeconomic interest. All stakeholders aim for the success of PHD, prioritizing efficient response, desired outcomes, health advantages and the satisfaction of key stakeholders [145]. Based on this empirical finding and, it is strongly recommended that key stakeholders, such as administrators and managers of public hospitals give priority to the creation of efficient collaborative administrative procedures to ensure successful PHD. Public hospitals administrators/managers necessitate active participation and effective collaboration among subordinates to establish and attain shared health delivery goals. It requires promoting shared responsibilities, establishing clear individual roles, and adhering to organizational standards. Furthermore, fostering support in the development of robust interpersonal connections and improving problem-solving capabilities are integral elements of effective collaborative administration endeavors [146]. Administrators and managers of public hospitals and human resource (HR) divisions have the ability to improve collaborative administration through the implementation of an extensive array of training and development programs. As this research results indicated attributes of public leadership influence PHD and collaborative administration. we encourage public health planning departments to ensure leadership attributes of accountability, rule-following, political loyalty network governance in public hospitals administrators/managers, as these public leadership attributes manifest in the form of desirable employees and organizational outcomes. Furthermore, public hospitals administrators/managers are highly encouraged to practice accountability, rule following, political loyalty, and network governance leadership attributes more often than usual as these lead to collaborative administration and PHD. Human resources departments are advised to prioritize the recruitment of administrators/ managers at public hospitals who possess strong inclinations toward accountability, adherence to rules, political loyalty, and network-oriented attributes. There is a greater likelihood that public employees who possess these characteristics will contribute significantly to the efficient operation of PHD. In addition, such employees assist in collaborative administration for effective and productive PHD.

Limitations of the study and future research directions

We collected data from the study using the commonly accepted online self-reporting descriptive survey method. This method has both strengths and weaknesses. One notable advantage of this methodology is that it efficiently enabled us to gather data from 464 administrators/managers of public hospitals and their respective medical units’ heads. It allowed us to measure public leaders’ opinions of PHD and collaborative administration, and medical wards head perceptions of the public leadership attributes through responding to self-report measures. Social desirability bias is the most significant drawback of self-reported instruments, as respondents are likely to provide biased responses regarding their PL, collaborative administration practices and PHD. Nevertheless, this potential bias was reduced by consistently emphasizing that the study’s objective is academic in nature and that all responses to the measures are maintained in strict confidentiality. Secondly, self-reporting measures sometimes cause common method bias (CMB) [147]. Risk of CMB was mitigated through the accumulation of data from two sources: medical units of hospitals assessed the public leadership attributes of public hospital administrators/managers, while the administrators/managers responded to measures of collaborative administration and PHD. Furthermore, single-factor statistics developed by Harman indicate that the data lacks CMB. It is recommended that future investigations employ consistent self-reporting instruments at various time intervals in order to bolster the reliability and consistency of the associations between the variables. The findings presented herein are derived at the variable level of the model. Nevertheless, it is possible that the dimensions of public leadership—namely AL, RL, LL, and NL—have an alternative impact on the dimensions of collaborations (such as governance, mutuality, autonomy, and norms) and PHD (including tangibility, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy). Subsequent investigations may explore the precise attributes of the variables in order to attain more profound understandings of the phenomenon. Additionally, a mixed-methods approach may be utilized to bolster the validity of the research model’s conclusions and fortify the validity of the results.

Conclusions

The objective of this research endeavor was to examine the impact of collaborative administration on PHD and to assess the influence of public leadership on PHD. The investigation also sought to examine the impact of collaborative administration as a mediating mechanism between public leadership and PHD. Data was collected from public hospitals administrators/ managers and their immediate medical units’ heads in the public health management context of Pakistan. Results revealed that public leadership improves PHD and collaborative administration, and that collaborative administration improves PHD. Results also revealed that public leadership engenders collaborative administration which ultimately improves PHD.

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

PL:

Public Leadership

CA:

Collaborative administration

PHD:

Public health delivery

References

  1. Lazarus JV, Mark HE, Anstee QM, Arab JP, Batterham RL, Castera L, et al. Advancing the global public health agenda for NAFLD: a consensus statement. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022;19:60–78.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Organization WH. Bending the trends to promote health and well-being: a strategic foresight on the future of health promotion. World Health Organization; 2022.

  3. Evans D, Bolden R, Jarvis C, Mann R, Patterson M, Thompson E. How do you develop systems leadership in public health? Insights from a scoping study. Public Health. 2021;196:24–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kickbusch I, Hein W, Silberschmidt G. Addressing global health governance challenges through a new mechanism: the proposal for a committee C of the World Health Assembly. J law Med Ethics. 2010;38:550–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Mazumdar S, Moreno-Serra R. 20. Political economy of public financing of health in low-and middle-income countries. Handb Polit Econ Heal Syst 0. 2023;:339.

  6. Teame K, Debie A, Tullu M. Healthcare leadership effectiveness among managers in public health institutions of Addis Ababa, Central Ethiopia: a mixed methods study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22:1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Karg ST, Kim M, Mitkidis P, Young L. Collaborative cheating in hierarchical teams: effects of incentive structure and leader behavior on subordinate behavior and perceptions of leaders. Personal Soc Psychol Bull. 2023;49:1166–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hughes W, Pickeral T. School climate and shared leadership. Sch Clim Pract Implement Sustain. 2013;26:1–56.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Alkadafi M, Susanti S. Strategy and role of public sector leadership in managing local government collaboration. In: International Conference of Public Administration and Governance (ICOPAG 2022). Atlantis Press; 2023. p. 190–204.

  10. Raelin JA. Imagine there are no leaders: reframing leadership as collaborative agency. Leadership. 2016;12:131–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Glenn J, Chaumont C, Villalobos Dintrans P. Public health leadership in the times of COVID-19: a comparative case study of three countries. Int J Public Leadersh. 2021;17:81–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Brownson RC, Baker EA, Deshpande AD, Gillespie KN. Evidence-based public health. Oxford university press; 2017.

  13. Getha-Taylor H, Grayer MJ, Kempf RJ, O’Leary R. Collaborating in the absence of trust? What collaborative governance theory and practice can learn from the literatures of conflict resolution, psychology, and law. Am Rev Public Adm. 2019;49:51–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Tummers L, Knies E. Measuring public leadership: developing scales for four key public leadership roles. Public Adm. 2016;94:433–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Vogel R, Werkmeister L. What is public about public leadership? Exploring implicit public leadership theories. J Public Adm Res Theory. 2021;31:166–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Grindle MS, Hilderbrand ME. Building sustainable capacity in the public sector: what can be done? Public Adm Dev. 1995;15:441–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Thomson AM, Perry JL, Miller TK. Conceptualizing and measuring collaboration. J Public Adm Res Theory. 2009;19:23–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Salancik GR, Pfeffer J. A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task design. Adm Sci Q. 1978;:224–53.

  19. Kirkman BL, Chen G, Farh J-L, Chen ZX, Lowe KB. Individual power distance orientation and follower reactions to transformational leaders: a cross-level, cross-cultural examination. Acad Manag J. 2009;52:744–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Sánchez-Polo MT, Cegarra-Navarro J-G, Cillo V, Wensley A. Overcoming knowledge barriers to health care through continuous learning. J Knowl Manag. 2019;23:508–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Fusheini A, Eyes J, Goudge J. The state of public hospital governance and management in a South African hospital: a case study. Int J Heal. 2017;3:68–77.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Oliver TR. The politics of public health policy. Annu Rev Public Heal. 2006;27:195–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Verrecchia R, Dar O, Mohamed-Ahmed O, Squires N. Building operational public health capacity through collaborative networks of National Public Health Institutes. BMJ Glob Heal. 2019;4:e001868.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Head BW, Alford J. Wicked problems: implications for public policy and management. Adm Soc. 2015;47:711–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lægreid P, Rykkja LH. Governance for complexity–how to organize for the handling of «wicked issues»? 2014.

  26. Bianchi C, Nasi G, Rivenbark WC. Implementing collaborative governance: models, experiences, and challenges. Public Manage Rev. 2021;23:1581–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Redwood S, Brangan E, Leach V, Horwood J, Donovan JL. Integration of research and practice to improve public health and healthcare delivery through a collaborative’Health integration team’model-a qualitative investigation. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16:1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Cristofoli D, Meneguzzo M, Riccucci N. Collaborative administration: the management of successful networks. Public Manage Rev. 2017;19:275–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Metzger ME, Alexander JA, Weiner BJ. The effects of leadership and governance processes on member participation in community health coalitions. Heal Educ Behav. 2005;32:455–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Zada M, Khan J, Saeed I, Zada S, Jun ZY. Linking public leadership with project management effectiveness: mediating role of goal clarity and moderating role of top management support. Heliyon. 2023;9.

  31. Khan NU, Zhongyi P, Han H, Ariza-Montes A. Linking public leadership and public project success: the mediating role of team building. Humanit Soc Sci Commun. 2023;10:1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hobdell M, Clarkson J, Petersen PE, Johnson N. Global goals for oral health 2020. Int Dent J. 2003;53:285–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Kousar S, Ahmed F, Afzal M, Segovia JE. Is government spending in the education and health sector necessary for human capital development? Humanit Soc Sci Commun. 2023;10:1–11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Turner KM, Rousseau N, Croot L, Duncan E, Yardley L, O’Cathain A, et al. Understanding successful development of complex health and healthcare interventions and its drivers from the perspective of developers and wider stakeholders: an international qualitative interview study. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e028756.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Bauder L, Giangobbe K, Asgary R. Barriers and Gaps in Effective Health Communication at both Public Health and Healthcare Delivery Levels during Epidemics and pandemics; systematic review. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2023;17:e395.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Juma LM, Ayub SE, Ali U. Influence of Participative Leadership Style on Public Health Service Delivery in County governments in the Western Kenya Region. Afr J Empir Res. 2023;4:116–32.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Karimi S, Ahmadi Malek F, Yaghoubi Farani A, Liobikienė G. The role of transformational leadership in developing innovative work behaviors: the mediating role of employees’ psychological capital. Sustainability. 2023;15:1267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Khaleghian P, Gupta M, Das. Public management and the essential public health functions. World Dev. 2005;33:1083–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Burkle FM. Declining public health protections within autocratic regimes: impact on global public health security, Infectious Disease outbreaks, epidemics, and pandemics. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2020;35:237–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Robbins B, Davidhizar R. Transformational leadership in health care today. Health Care Manag (Frederick). 2020;39:117–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Fox E, Bottrell MM, Berkowitz KA, Chanko BL, Foglia MB, Pearlman RA. IntegratedEthics: an innovative program to improve ethics quality in health care. Innov J. 2010;15:1–36.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Sturm BA. Principles of servant-leadership in community health nursing: management issues and behaviors discovered in ethnographic research. Home Health Care Manag Pract. 2009;21:82–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Javed B, Fatima T, Khan AK, Bashir S. Impact of inclusive leadership on innovative work behavior: the role of creative self-efficacy. J Creat Behav. 2021;55:769–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Hoddinott P, Allan K, Avenell A, Britten J. Group interventions to improve health outcomes: a framework for their design and delivery. BMC Public Health. 2010;10:1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4:1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Gajda R. Utilizing collaboration theory to evaluate strategic alliances. Am J Eval. 2004;25:65–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Hansen JR, Villadsen AR. Comparing public and private managers’ leadership styles: understanding the role of job context. Int Public Manag J. 2010;13:247–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Nilsson H. A four-dimensional model of mindfulness and its implications for health. Psycholog Relig Spiritual. 2014;6:162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Grimmelikhuijsen S, Jilke S, Olsen AL, Tummers L. Behavioral public administration: combining insights from public administration and psychology. Public Adm Rev. 2017;77:45–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Agranoff R. Inside collaborative networks: ten lessons for public managers. Public Adm Rev. 2006;66:56–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Gerrish E. The impact of performance management on performance in public organizations: a meta-analysis. Public Adm Rev. 2016;76:48–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Schwarz G, Eva N, Newman A. Can public leadership increase public service motivation and job performance? Public Adm Rev. 2020;80:543–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Grol R, Wensing M, Eccles M, Davis D. Improving patient care: the implementation of change in health care. John Wiley & Sons; 2013.

  54. DeHart-Davis L. Creating effective rules in public sector organizations. Georgetown University Press; 2017.

  55. Berberoglu A. Impact of organizational climate on organizational commitment and perceived organizational performance: empirical evidence from public hospitals. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18:1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Kabue M, Abubakar A, Ssewanyana D, Angwenyi V, Marangu J, Njoroge E, et al. A Community Engagement approach for an integrated early childhood development intervention: a case study of an urban informal settlement with kenyans and embedded refugees. BMC Public Health. 2022;22:711.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Gostin LO. Public health law: power, duty, restraint. Univ of California Press; 2000.

  58. Mosadeghrad AM. Factors influencing healthcare service quality. Int J Heal Policy Manag. 2014;3:77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Brandt E, Rodriguez A, Nwakpuda E, Bezboruah K. Redefining morally conscious decision-making for the Public Sector: a theoretical analysis. Adm Soc. 2023;55:184–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Triantafillou P, Hansen MP. Introduction to the PMR special issue on accountability and legitimacy under collaborative governance. Public Manage Rev. 2022;24:655–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Kruse P, Rosing F. An experimental investigation of perceived differences in personality and leadership attributes of social entrepreneurs compared to for profit entrepreneurs and non-profit organisations leaders. J Entrep. 2023. 09713557231160332.

  62. Gray B, Purdy J. Collaborating for our future: Multistakeholder partnerships for solving complex problems. Oxford University Press; 2018.

  63. Rowitz L. Public health leadership: putting principles into practice. Jones & Bartlett Publishers; 2014.

  64. Bowman JS, West JP, Berman M, Van Wart M. The professional edge: competencies in public service. Routledge; 2016.

  65. Behn R. Leadership counts: lessons for public managers from the Massachusetts welfare, training, and employment program. Harvard University Press; 2009.

  66. Terry PE. Leadership and achieving a vision—how does a profession lead a nation? Am J Heal Promot. 2003;18:162–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Van Wart M, McIntyre M, Hall JL. Social inclusion, social exclusion, and the role of leaders in avoiding—or promoting—societal collapse. Public Adm Rev. 2023;83:691–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Fraser M, Castrucci B, Harper E. Public health leadership and management in the era of public health 3.0. J Public Heal Manag Pract. 2017;23:90–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Kapucu N, Ustun Y. Collaborative crisis management and leadership in the public sector. Int J Public Adm. 2018;41:548–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Shi S, Chong H-Y, Liu L, Ye X. Examining the interrelationship among critical success factors of public private partnership infrastructure projects. Sustainability. 2016;8:1313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Siddiquee NA, Xavier JA. Collaborative approach to public service improvement: the Malaysian experience and lessons. Int J Public Sect Manag. 2020;34:17–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Wolstenholme A, Austin S, Bairstow M, Blumenthal A, Lorimer J, McGuckin S et al. Never waste a good crisis: a review of progress since Rethinking Construction and thoughts for our future. 2009.

  73. Agranoff R, McGuire M. Big questions in public network management research. J Public Adm Res Theory. 2001;11:295–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Crosby BC, Bryson JM. Why leadership of public leadership research matters: and what to do about it. Public Manag Rev. 2018;20:1265–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Bryson JM, Crosby BC, Stone MM. Designing and implementing cross-sector collaborations: needed and challenging. Public Adm Rev. 2015;75:647–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Page S. Integrative leadership for collaborative governance: Civic engagement in Seattle. Leadersh Q. 2010;21:246–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Silvia C. Picking the team: a preliminary experimental study of the activation of collaborative network members. J Public Adm Res Theory. 2018;28:120–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Kinder T, Stenvall J, Six F, Memon A. Relational leadership in collaborative governance ecosystems. Public Manag Rev. 2021;23:1612–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Ansell C, Gash A. Collaborative governance in theory and practice. J Public Adm Res Theory. 2008;18:543–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Grindle M. Good governance: the inflation of an idea. Plan Ideas that Matter. 2012;:259–82.

  81. Fernandes A, Santinha G, Forte T. Public service motivation and determining factors to attract and retain health professionals in the public sector: a systematic review. Behav Sci (Basel). 2022;12:95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Shaukat R, Ahmad S, Naveed MA, Ur Rehman S. Impact of personality traits on knowledge sharing behavior of academicians: a case of University of Sargodha, Punjab, Pakistan. SAGE Open. 2023;13:21582440231160984.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. DuBrin AJ. Leadership: Research findings, practice, and skills. Cengage Learning; 2022.

  84. Tammeaid M. Public sector leadership meta-skills. 2023.

  85. Haase H, Franco M. Leadership and collective entrepreneurship: evidence from the health care sector. Innov Eur J Soc Sci Res. 2020;33:368–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Ang’ana GA, Kilika JM. Collaborative Leadership in an Organizational Context: A Research Agenda. J Hum Resour Leadersh. 2022;6:48–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Hunter DJ. Leading for health and wellbeing: the need for a new paradigm. J Public Health (Bangkok). 2009;31:202–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Roberts JP, Fisher TR, Trowbridge MJ, Bent C. A design thinking framework for healthcare management and innovation. Healthcare. Elsevier; 2016. pp. 11–4.

  89. Koppl R. Public health and expert failure. Public Choice. 2023;195:101–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Valaitis RK, O’Mara L, Wong ST, MacDonald M, Murray N, Martin-Misener R, et al. Strengthening primary health care through primary care and public health collaboration: the influence of intrapersonal and interpersonal factors. Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2018;19:378–91.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  91. Parker S, Hartley J, Beashel J, Vo Q. Leading for public value in multi-agency collaboration. Public Policy Adm. 2023;38:83–106.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Ellis WR, Dietz WH. A new framework for addressing adverse childhood and community experiences: the building community resilience model. Acad Pediatr. 2017;17:86–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Tembo D, Hickey G, Montenegro C, Chandler D, Nelson E, Porter K et al. Effective engagement and involvement with community stakeholders in the co-production of global health research. BMJ. 2021;372.

  94. Traynor R, Dobbins M, DeCorby K. Challenges of partnership research: insights from a collaborative partnership in evidence-informed public health decision making. Evid Policy. 2015;11:99–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Klijn EH, Koppenjan J. Governance networks in the public sector. Routledge; 2015.

  96. Bevan G, Hood C. What’s measured is what matters: targets and gaming in the English public health care system. Public Adm. 2006;84:517–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Bloch P, Toft U, Reinbach HC, Clausen LT, Mikkelsen BE, Poulsen K, et al. Revitalizing the setting approach–supersettings for sustainable impact in community health promotion. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2014;11:1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Han Q, Zheng B, Cristea M, Agostini M, Bélanger JJ, Gützkow B, et al. Trust in government regarding COVID-19 and its associations with preventive health behaviour and prosocial behaviour during the pandemic: a cross-sectional and longitudinal study. Psychol Med. 2023;53:149–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Gordon AL, Dhesi J. Resolving the health and social care crisis requires a focus on care for older people. BMJ. 2023;380.

  100. Moisoglou I, Panagiotis P, Galanis P, Siskou O, Maniadakis N, Kaitelidou D. Conflict management in a Greek public hospital: collaboration or avoidance. Int J Caring Sci. 2014;7:75–82.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Choroszewicz M, Alastalo M. Organisational and professional hierarchies in a data management system: public–private collaborative building of public healthcare and social services in Finland. Inform Commun Soc. 2023;26:155–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Bitterman P, Koliba CJ. Modeling alternative collaborative governance network designs: an agent-based model of water governance in the Lake Champlain Basin, Vermont. J Public Adm Res Theory. 2020;30:636–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Jack SL. The role, use and activation of strong and weak network ties: a qualitative analysis. J Manag Stud. 2005;42:1233–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Karim S, Uddin S, Imam T, Moni MA. A systematic review of network studies based on administrative health data. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17:2568.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  105. Huang C, Liu Y, Turnover. Interlocal Collaboration and Organizational Performance: Testing Mediator and Moderator Effects.

  106. Liu Z, Lin S, Lu T, Shen Y, Liang S. Towards a constructed order of co-governance: understanding the state–society dynamics of neighbourhood collaborative responses to COVID-19 in urban China. Urban Stud. 2023;60:1730–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Derycke H, Vlerick P, Burnay N, Decleire C, D’Hoore W, Hasselhorn H, et al. Impact of the effort–reward imbalance model on intent to leave among Belgian health care workers: a prospective study. J Occup Organ Psychol. 2010;83:879–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Schlesinger A, Sengupta S, Marx L, Hilt R, Martini DR, DeMaso DR, et al. Clinical update: collaborative mental health care for children and adolescents in pediatric primary care. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2023;62:91–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Hu F, Qiu L, Xiang Y, Wei S, Sun H, Hu H, et al. Spatial network and driving factors of low-carbon patent applications in China from a public health perspective. Front Public Heal. 2023;11:1121860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Burns LR, Wholey DR, McCullough JS, Kralovec P, Muller R. The changing configuration of hospital systems: centralization, federalization, or fragmentation? Annu Rev Heal care Manag Strateg policy perspect reforming. Heal Syst. 2012;:189–232.

  111. Saramunee K, Krska J, Mackridge A, Richards J, Suttajit S, Phillips-Howard P. How to enhance public health service utilization in community pharmacy? General public and health providers’ perspectives. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2014;10:272–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Maranto R, Teodoro MP, Carroll K, Cheng A. Gendered ambition: men’s and women’s career advancement in public administration. Am Rev Public Adm. 2019;49:469–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Hogue M, Knapp DE, Peck JA, Weems-Landingham V. The status of internalized prejudice in leader self-development. Manag Decis. 2023;61:944–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Waldorff SB, Madsen MH. Translating to maintain existing practices: micro-tactics in the implementation of a new management concept. Organ Stud. 2023;44:427–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Shahbaz S, Zakar R, Fischer F. Anesthesia Health System Capacities in Public Hospitals of Punjab, Pakistan. Inq J Heal Care Organ Provision Financ. 2021;58:00469580211059740.

    Google Scholar 

  116. Vogel D, Reuber A, Vogel R. Developing a short scale to assess public leadership. Public Adm. 2020;98:958–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Zeithaml VA, Parasuraman A, Berry LL, Berry LL. Delivering quality service: balancing customer perceptions and expectations. Simon and Schuster; 1990.

  118. Irfan SM, Ijaz A, Kee DMH, Awan M. Improving operational performance of public hospital in Pakistan: a TQM based approach. World Appl Sci J. 2012;19:904–13.

    Google Scholar 

  119. Aga DA, Noorderhaven N, Vallejo B. Transformational leadership and project success: the mediating role of team-building. Int J Proj Manag. 2016;34:806–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  120. Hayes TM. Demographic characteristics predicting employee turnover intentions. 2015.

  121. Dash G, Paul J. CB-SEM vs PLS-SEM methods for research in social sciences and technology forecasting. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2021;173:121092.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  122. Rucker DD, Preacher KJ, Tormala ZL, Petty RE. Mediation analysis in social psychology: current practices and new recommendations. Soc Personal Psychol Compass. 2011;5:359–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  123. Fuller CM, Simmering MJ, Atinc G, Atinc Y, Babin BJ. Common methods variance detection in business research. J Bus Res. 2016;69:3192–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  124. Bhattacherjee A. Social science research: principles, methods, and practices. USA; 2012.

  125. Fornell C, Larcker DF. Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. 1981.

  126. Zaiţ A, Bertea P. Methods for testing discriminant validity. Manag Mark J. 2011;9:217–24.

    Google Scholar 

  127. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986;51:1173.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  128. Abu-Bader S, Jones TV. Statistical mediation analysis using the sobel test and hayes SPSS process macro. Int J Quant Qual Res Methods. 2021.

  129. Jumaa MO, Alleyne J. Strategic Leadership in Health Care in Challenging Times. Organ Dev Heal Care Strateg Issues Heal Care Manag. 2017.

  130. Sholeh M. Transformational leadership: principal intellectual stimulation in improving teacher competences. Al-Ta Lim J. 2021;28:167–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  131. Haq S, Asbari M, Novitasari D, Abadiyah S. The homeschooling head performance: how the role of transformational leadership, motivation, and self-efficacy? Int J Soc Manag Stud. 2022;3:167–79.

    Google Scholar 

  132. Høstrup M, Andersen LB. Leading to make a difference for whom? How vision content moderates the relationship between transformational leadership and public service motivation. Int Public Manag J. 2022;25:585–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  133. Kurniasih D, Setyoko PI, Saputra AS. Public Health Center Performance during Covid-19 pandemic: what are the contribution of knowledge sharing, work motivation, transformational Leadership and Organizational Citizenship Behavior? J Ind Eng Manag Res. 2022;3:148–68.

    Google Scholar 

  134. Chen D, Ning B, Bos W. Relationship between principal leadership style and student achievement: a comparative study between Germany and China. SAGE Open. 2022;12:21582440221094600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  135. Shah I, Mahmood T, Khan SA, Elahi N, Shahnawaz M, Dogar AA, et al. Inter-agency collaboration and Disaster management: a case study of the 2005 Earthquake Disaster in Pakistan. Jàmbá-Journal Disaster Risk Stud. 2022;14:1088.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  136. Elston T, Bel G. Does inter-municipal collaboration improve public service resilience? Evidence from local authorities in England. Public Manag Rev. 2023;25:734–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  137. Khan H, Moazzam A. Interagency Collaboration/Coordination in the context of Pakistan: case of Polio Eradication Program. Public Sector reforms in Pakistan: hierarchies, markets and networks. Springer; 2022. pp. 153–72.

  138. Sudarmo S. Human resources management and leadership for public services in the 21st century. Int J Business Econ Manag. 2020;3:219–25.

    Google Scholar 

  139. Arslan A, Golgeci I, Khan Z, Al-Tabbaa O, Hurmelinna-Laukkanen P. Adaptive learning in cross-sector collaboration during global emergency: conceptual insights in the context of COVID-19 pandemic. Multinatl Bus Rev. 2021;29:21–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  140. Currie G, Lockett A, Suhomlinova O. Leadership and institutional change in the public sector: the case of secondary schools in England. Leadersh Q. 2009;20:664–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  141. Ledlow GR, Bosworth M, Maryon T. Leadership for health professionals: theory, skills, and applications. Jones & Bartlett Learning; 2023.

  142. Chen J, Liu Q, Liu X, Wang Y, Nie H, Xie X. Exploring the Functioning of Online Self-Organizations during Public Health emergencies: patterns and mechanism. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023;20:4012.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  143. Suar D, Jha AK, Gochhayat J, Samanta SR. Public Leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic: can Leadership theories explain it? Glob Bus Rev. 2023;:09721509221149604.

  144. Yang L, Lou J, Zhou J, Zhao X, Jiang Z. Complex network-based research on organization collaboration and cooperation governance responding to COVID-19. Eng Constr Archit Manag. 2023;30:3749–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  145. Walters JK, Sharma A, Malica E, Harrison R. Supporting efficiency improvement in public health systems: a rapid evidence synthesis. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22:293.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  146. Tang T, Vezzani V, Eriksson V. Developing critical thinking, collective creativity skills and problem solving through playful design jams. Think Ski Creat. 2020;37:100696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  147. Jordan PJ, Troth AC. Common method bias in applied settings: the dilemma of researching in organizations. Aust J Manag. 2020;45:3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research is funded by authors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Public Administration, Central South University, Yuelu District, Changsha, Hunan, 410017, China

    Muhammad Zia ud din, Xu Yuan yuan & Naqib Ullah Khan

  2. FERRANDI Paris (France), Lirsa, Cnam, Hesam Université, Paris, France

    Christophe Estay

Authors
  1. Muhammad Zia ud din
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xu Yuan yuan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Naqib Ullah Khan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christophe Estay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

A.B.C conceptualized the research idea; A.B conducted the surveys and performed the analysis; A.B wrote the first draft of the manuscript; B and D helped in the first revision of the manuscript. All authors critically discussed the results, revised the manuscript and have read and approved the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Xu Yuan yuan or Naqib Ullah Khan.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of school of public administration, Central south University, Changsha, Hunan (August 05, 2022). This article obtained informed consents from all human participants.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

: Questionnaire

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zia ud din, M., Yuan yuan, X., Ullah Khan, N. et al. The impact of public leadership on collaborative administration and public health delivery. BMC Health Serv Res 24, 129 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-10537-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-10537-0

Keywords

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

Contact us